Math Predicts Large-Scale Conspiracies Would Fall Apart (Is Probably LIES Anyway so Whatever)

a reply to: Astyanax

So the military or CIA can't have conspiracies?

That makes no sense nor does your arguement. In fact I think you just supported mine. Under the right guidelines you can keep. Conspiracy. As long as the people believe it's for a good reason.

Again MK Ultra and the saint Louis radiation expirements come to mind.

a reply to: luthier

So the military or CIA can't have conspiracies?

Nothing I said implies that.

MK Ultra and the saint Louis radiation expirements

Indeed they do. No ante hoc conspiracies about though, sadly.

a reply to: Astyanax

That wasn't part of the paper and program was it?

Just saying the expirement does not state their needs to be some overlord comittee dictating the world's fate. It says the more people involved. There were literally hundreds of institutions involved in mk Ultra. Some how through subversive and other techniques it was kept secret. My point is that is how real secrets get kept. Similar to that model.

It seems you chose to argue against me or that point.

Do I think drug companies keep cancer cures or the lunar landing is a fake the answers have a very high probability of no.

Those however, are not the only type of conspiracies nor does the paper or any of the data points I saw reflect that was the only premise tested.

My arguement was under the right conditions it very possible to keep even large scale conspiracies. Even when the murmors of the siphulus project in Guatemala were about it wasn't actually exposed until much later (1995)

In summary I found some flaw in the study but do agree with some of it in a general way as well.

a reply to: luthier

The paper is not claiming that successful conspiracies are impossible. From the abstract:

historical examples of exposed conspiracies do exist and it may be difficult for people to differentiate between reasonable and dubious assertions.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Punisher75

I would contend that when we see criminal charges and impeachment, it has more to do with convenience rather than as any evidence for the other conspiracy theories being false.

It has nothing to do with convenience, it has to do with the conspiracy being exposed.

Indeed it was exposed and people are prosecuted because it is easier and more convenient to dispose of those particular people, than to deal with backlash. Other times that is not the case.

Who for example went to prison or otherwise punished when the MKULTRA program was exposed?

No one.

a reply to: luthier

How did sain louis get kept secret?

If it was kept secret, how did you find out about it?

Or mkultra. Hundreds of institutions were doing research from the early 50' until the late 60's. Wasn't brought to light until 75.

Again, it came to light. Which brings up the point that some conspiracy beliefs are based on revelations by self proclaimed "whistle blowers" or "leaked documents" that ultimately have no consequences in the real world.

a reply to: Punisher75

Indeed it was exposed and people are prosecuted because it is easier and more convenient to dispose of those particular people, than to deal with backlash. Other times that is not the case.

Wouldn't it have been easier just to deny that Iran-Contra wasn't happening? Why didn't Congress join in on the conspiracy? It would have saved taxpayers money.

Who for example went to prison or otherwise punished when the MKULTRA program was exposed?

No one.

Perhaps because MK Ultra never existed... or if it did, the institutions involved were acting legally.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: luthier

How did sain louis get kept secret?

If it was kept secret, how did you find out about it?

Or mkultra. Hundreds of institutions were doing research from the early 50' until the late 60's. Wasn't brought to light until 75.

Again, it came to light. Which brings up the point that some conspiracy beliefs are based on revelations by self proclaimed "whistle blowers" or "leaked documents" that ultimately have no consequences in the real world.

I was argueing against the fact they happen within 3 years. I think the paper should have used subcategories rather than. A generic average.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Punisher75

Indeed it was exposed and people are prosecuted because it is easier and more convenient to dispose of those particular people, than to deal with backlash. Other times that is not the case.

Wouldn't it have been easier just to deny that Iran-Contra wasn't happening? Why didn't Congress join in on the conspiracy? It would have saved taxpayers money.

Who for example went to prison or otherwise punished when the MKULTRA program was exposed?

No one.

Perhaps because MK Ultra never existed... or if it did, the institutions involved were acting legally.

I would encourage you to research the program, if you have not done so already.
Personally I think that documents having been released to public through the freedom of information act would be sufficient evidence of the programs existence don't you?

Anyway Wikipedia while not a scholarly magazine, does cite its sources feel free to look into it at your lesuire.
en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: luthier

An average is an average. Generally, conspiracies have a single short term goal. Someone wants to corner the silver market right away. A group wants to overthrow Fearless Leader as soon as possible. This election has to be rigged before all the votes are counted.

a reply to: DJW001

Maybe read up on the events. They were not legal and certainly existed.

a reply to: Punisher75

Or a supreme court case.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Punisher75

Or a supreme court case.

Indeed.

a reply to: DJW001

An average is an average....really?
So if 100 percent of people get cancer in an area and 1 percent in another the conclusion is you combine the average to find how many people will get cancer regardless of where they live?

a reply to: Punisher75

The CIA was performing experiments under the heading MK Ultra, but most of what conspiracy theorists believe about it is fantasy. The institutions that participated were doing so legally, the clandestine experiments on military personnel were obviously unethical, but their legality has been controversial. Even before documents came to light, there had been rumors of CIA mind control experiments... in fact, it was a staple of the literature of the time.

a reply to: DJW001

Uh no it was admitted it was illegal. WW2 had something to do with that.

And your moving the goal post. It doesn't matter what conspiracy theorists thought. That isn't even the arguement or the study.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: DJW001

An average is an average....really?
So if 100 percent of people get cancer in an area and 1 percent in another the conclusion is you combine the average to find how many people will get cancer regardless of where they live?

Correct. The average incidence of cancer in the population you specified is 50%. Now you would obviously want to take a closer look at the area with a higher rate to see whether or not there is a reason why it is so high. (There are different types of averages, by the way. Without going back to the original paper the average they are talking about is probably the "mode," most conspiracies get blown in three years. There may be outliers that last longer.)

a reply to: luthier

You're the one moving the goalposts! You keep bringing up exposed secrets and conspiracies to prove that it is possible to keep them secret! How does that work?

a reply to: DJW001

That was exactly my critism of the study. You probably want to look deeper than an average which may or may not have any meaning.

I agree in many cases the study is correct. I don't agree with the assertion it makes. I think if you separated it into categories you find certain institutions can hide conspiracies better than others which is a more useful claim
And a better reflection of the "truth"

Like my cancer example. If I live in the 100 percent area should I assume I only have a 50 percent chance?

Rumors do not qualify as exposure either. They are very different or else your argueing for every conspiracy theory out there.

a reply to: DJW001

Nope. I am saying 3 years is not an accurate representation of the truth.